(PC) Mays v. County of Sacramento, No. 2:2018cv02081 - Document 105 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/9/2019 RECOMMENDING 92 Unopposed Motion for Attorney Fees be granted, as detailed in this Findings and Recommendations. Referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections due within 10 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Aaron J. Fischer (SBN 247391) Aaron.Fischer@disabilityrightsca.org Anne Hadreas (SBN 253377) anne.hadreas@disabilityrightsca.org DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 1330 Broadway, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 267-1200 Fax: (510) 267-1201 Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria (SBN 220934) jvs@cooley.com Mark A. Zambarda (SBN 314808) mzambarda@cooley.com Addison M. Litton (SBN 305374) alitton@cooley.com COOLEY LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130 Tifanei Ressl-Moyer (SBN 319721) Telephone: (650) 843-5000 tifanei.ressl-moyer@disabilityrightsca.org Facsimile: (650) 849-7400 DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA 1831 K Street Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 504-5800 Fax: (916) 504-5801 15 Donald Specter (SBN 83925) dspecter@prisonlaw.com Margot Mendelson (SBN 268583) mmendelson@prisonlaw.com Sophie Hart (SBN 321663) sophieh@prisonlaw.coom PRISON LAW OFFICE 1917 Fifth Street Berkeley, California 94710 Telephone: (510) 280-2621 Fax: (510) 280-2704 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 11 12 13 14 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 20 21 22 23 24 LORENZO MAYS, RICKY RICHARDSON, JENNIFER BOTHUN, ARMANI LEE, LEERTESE BEIRGE, and CODY GARLAND, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 25 26 27 28 v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:18-cv-02081 TLN KJN CLASS ACTION [PROPOSED] FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RE PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES Date: December 6, 2019 Time: 11:00 a.m. Judge: Hon. Kendall J. Newman Courtroom: 25 1 This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed 2 Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Expenses (the “Motion”). Having considered the 3 briefing in support of the Motion, responses from class members, relevant legal 4 authority, and the record in this case, the Court finds good cause to recommend the 5 Motion be GRANTED. 6 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h), class members were informed 7 about the fee request in the Class Notice, and a full copy of the Motion was made 8 available to all class members upon request. Class members were afforded an 9 opportunity to comment or object to the Motion, and this Court held a hearing on the 10 Motion. 11 After review of all briefing and evidence presented, this Court finds that the 12 agreed-upon award of $2,100,000.00 is fair and reasonable. In this case, Plaintiffs 13 sought to address deficiencies in the medical and mental health care provided to people 14 in Defendant’s jails, inadequate suicide prevention policies and practices, the misuse 15 and overuse of solitary confinement, and discrimination against people with disabilities. 16 The Consent Decree does just that. It includes a comprehensive Remedial Plan that 17 requires Defendant to implement specific policies, procedures, and practices intended to 18 ensure minimally adequate mental health and medical care, to ameliorate or eliminate 19 the risks of harm caused by dangerous solitary confinement practices, and to ensure that 20 people with disabilities receive reasonable accommodations and equal access to the 21 programs, services, and activities that Defendant offers in its jails. 22 To get to this result, Plaintiffs devoted more than four years to investigating and 23 litigating this case, meeting, corresponding with, and interviewing prisoners, reviewing 24 and analyzing healthcare records, inspecting the jail facilities, and meeting and 25 negotiating with Defendant. The parties expended considerable time and resources 26 negotiating the terms of the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan. 27 28 The fee request reasonably reflects the time and labor required to litigate this matter, and was appropriately calculated pursuant to the lodestar method. Though 1 1 counsel represented the Plaintiffs without charge, Plaintiffs’ counsel exercised the same 2 billing judgment and discretion accorded to private clients. Gonzalez v. City of 3 Maywood, 729 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Ultimately, a ‘reasonable’ number of 4 hours equals ‘[t]he number of hours . . . [which] could reasonably have been billed to a 5 private client.’”) (citations omitted, alterations in original). 6 Courts have long recognized that the lodestar method of calculating fees is 7 strongly presumed to be reasonable. Oviatt v. Pearce, 954 F.2d 1470, 1482 (9th Cir. 8 1992) (“There is a strong presumption that the lodestar figure is reasonable, and 9 adjustments are to be adopted only in exceptional cases.”); Morales v. City of San 10 Rafael, 96 F.3d 359, 363 n.8 (9th Cir. 1996). 11 The agreed upon fee award fairly reflects the novelty and difficulty of the 12 questions presented, the skill required in litigating this complex case, and the fact that 13 Plaintiffs’ counsel litigated this matter on a contingency basis. In doing so, Plaintiffs’ 14 counsel dedicated a significant number of hours and incurred significant out-of-pocket 15 expenses. 16 Thus, the undersigned finds that the request for $2,100,000.00 in attorney’s fees 17 and expenses is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Because the lodestar rate was calculated 18 based on this unique and complex class action, such rate shall not be cited or referenced 19 in any other lawsuit or other matters, as expressly stated and agreed on the court record. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiffs’ Unopposed 21 Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Expenses (ECF No. 92) should be GRANTED, as 22 follows: 23 1. Defendant should be ordered to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $2,100,000.00 for 24 reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs. Payment shall be made in two 25 installments: (1) the first installment in the amount of $1,050,000.00 by no 26 later than January 31, 2020, and (2) the second installment in the amount of 27 $1,050,000.00 by no later than July 31, 2020. 28 2 1 2. Defendant should be ordered to pay Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable attorneys’ 2 fees and expenses up to $250,000.00 per year for monitoring of 3 implementation of the Consent Decree and Remedial Plan. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 5 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 6 ten days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may 7 file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document 8 should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 9 Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within ten 10 days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 11 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 12 order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 13 The parties are advised that if they do not object to these recommendations, each 14 counsel shall file a statement of non-opposition or statement of no objections, to shorten 15 the objection period and facilitate the adjudication of this motion by the district court. 16 17 Dated: December 9, 2019 18 19 20 21 /mays2081.fees 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.